Methods for evaluating chemical components based on their proposed function in the product they are to be used in

ABSTRACT

Disclosed are methods for evaluating the environmental impact of various chemical components as a function of their proposed functional use in a chemical product, methods for formulating products based on those evaluations, and databases for assisting in those methods. Consumer products can be environmentally improved using these methods. Environmental criteria are in part developed based on the nature of the ultimate use of the product, and usually vary for a given chemical between types of proposed uses. The environmental classes for components are adjusted by their weight representation in the final product.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This is a divisional application of U.S. application Ser. No. 10/458,746which was filed on Jun. 10, 2003, now allowed.

STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH/DEVELOPMENT

Not applicable.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to methods for producing products withreduced environmental “footprints”. Such methods appear particularlyuseful in formulating consumer products such as cleaning chemicals, aircare products, and home insecticides.

Many consumers have a preference for products which have (or are atleast perceived by them to have) lesser adverse environmental impactsthan other competing products. This is evidenced by the growth of the“organic” foods market, and the labeling of products with markings suchas “environmentally friendly” or “green”.

Apart from consumer preferences for environmentally friendly products,governments are increasingly regulating from an environmental standpointthe content of products, and in certain cases the additionalresponsibilities of companies during their manufacture, transportationand disposal. To insure the widest distribution and acceptance of theirproducts, manufacturers therefore have good reason to take into accounta wide variety of differing environmental legal requirements.

There are also other significant business reasons for formulatingproducts with reduced environmental impacts. One such additional reasonis to reduce the potential for future litigation if certain chemicalsare mishandled (e.g. avoiding Superfund type issues).

The art has therefore begun to develop a number of different techniquesfor taking into account environmental issues when formulating productsand acquiring their raw materials. In one approach the art has developeda public “grading system” of suppliers insofar as their environmentalpractices are concerned.

If a component is purchased from a company that follows strictenvironmental protection procedures, the impact on the environment frombuying from that company may well be less than if the component ispurchased from a company having a history of improper waste disposal.The environmental history of raw material supplier companies, and theircurrent environmental procedures, are being taken into account byvarious agencies that assign suppliers environmental grades. Thesegrades are made available to purchasing managers, who (all other thingsbeing equal or roughly equal) may make purchasing decisions basedthereon.

Also known in the art are grading systems which grade possible adverseenvironmental effects of the resulting products. For example, the arthas made a combined environmental impact ranking which factors in avariety of information such as defined toxicity criteria. Such systemsare also known to be associated with certain seals of approval byorganizations having a perceived objective reputation regardingenvironmental matters.

However, these prior art systems typically grade a particular componentwithout taking into account that a given component may havesignificantly different environmental impacts depending on the type ofproduct it is to be used in, and what that product is to be used for.For example, phosphate used in a consumer cleaner intended to be flushedinto the drain water supply by consumers would normally be perceived asenvironmentally undesirable due to foaming problems in rivers and thelike, and the tendency of phosphates to increase undesired plant growth.However, the presence of a phosphate in certain industrial cleaners thatare typically disposed in other ways could well have little adverseenvironmental impact.

Also known are systems which adjust the grades of input components of aproduct by their relative weight in that product. For example, U.S. Pat.No. 5,933,765 discloses an environmental grading system in which aproduct containing multiple components has each of its input componentsprovided with a numerical score based on factors such as toxicity,ingredient bans, and legislative concerns. Each component is compared toa single published limit (such as a Dutch PPT Telecom standard) and anumerical value for that component is assigned.

The scores are then weighted based on the relative percentage weight ofthe raw material to provide an overall score for the resulting product.Again, only one possible score is provided for a given raw materialchemical, regardless of application, albeit that score is weighted byprominence in the final product.

Thus, prior art environmental grading or rating systems do not providean optimal system for formulating products, especially when a companydevelops a wide variety of different types of products having differentapplications, and some chemicals are used in more than one type ofproduct.

To be commercially viable over the long term a product must meet certaincost and performance criteria, regardless of environmental attributes.Thus, in some cases environmental grading will not be the decidingfactor. However, it is desired that a better system be developed forevaluating the environmental impact of chemical components and forformulating products having improved environmental characteristics forany given cost and performance criteria. Moreover, even where there aresome differences in cost and performance between competing proposedformulas, such an improved environmental grading system is still desiredas that will at minimum more meaningfully advise the formulator as tothe nature of the trade-offs.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention provides a method for formulating a product for aspecified functional use. It involves:

(a) obtaining two possible formulas for the product, each formula havingat least two chemical components;

(b) for each component, separately environmentally classifying anenvironmental impact of the component for the functional use for aformula by the following process:

-   -   (i) assigning that chemical component to a category based on a        proposed functional use of the chemical component;    -   (ii) comparing that chemical component to at least two        environmental category-specific criteria associated with that        category;    -   (iii) assigning a class numerical value for each said criteria        for that chemical component based on the result of the        comparison; and    -   (iv) combining the class numerical values assigned to that        chemical component for each of the category specific criteria        associated with the category for that chemical component;    -   whereby the combination provides an overall environmental class        for the chemical component for a formula;

(c) with respect to each component in the first formula multiplying itsenvironmental class times a number representative of its relative weightpresence in the first formula;

(d) summing the result of the step (c) multiplications for the chemicalcomponents in the first formula to provide an environmental grade forthe first formula;

(e) with respect to each component in the second formula multiplying itsenvironmental class times a number representative of its relative weightpresence in the second formula;

(f) summing the result of the step (e) multiplications for the chemicalcomponents in the second formula to provide an environmental grade forthe second formula; and

(g) comparing resulting environmental grades for the first and secondformulas, and based at least in part on the comparison selecting aformulation for the product.

At least part of the method is not computer-implemented. For example,some of the steps could be done manually.

Each chemical component is initially assigned to a category based on aproposed functional use of the chemical component. The functional usescould include, for example, as a surfactant, solvent, propellant,antimicrobial, preservative, chelant, antioxidant, absorbent, thickener,lubricant, colorant, fragrance, corrosion inhibitor, builder, whiteningagent, acid, insecticide, plasticizer, wax, polish or stabilizer.

Each chemical component is then compared to at least two environmentalcategory-specific criteria associated with the category, and a classnumerical value is assigned to the chemical component based on theresult of the comparison for each criterion. This process is continuedfor each category-specific criterion associated with the selectedcategory, and an average (or other combination) of the values iscalculated for the chemical component to provide an overallenvironmental class for the chemical component.

The environmental classes determined for each of the chemical componentsin a chemical product can be multiplied by their relative weightpresence in the product being formulated. The results for each componentare then added together. The resulting combined “grade” provides anoverall environmental grade for the product. The grades are thencompared to make the selection of a formulation.

The criteria applied to the chemical components may, for example,reflect criteria selected from the group consisting of aquatictoxicology, biodegradability, acute human toxicity, European Unionenvironmental classification, supplier rating, vapor pressure, waterpartition coefficient, propellant rating, aquatic toxicity, persistence,and bio-accumulation.

As an example, the aquatic toxicology criteria may reflect a comparisonto a LC50 standard, the biodegradability criteria may reflect acomparison to an OECD 301 standard, the acute human toxicity criteriamay reflect a comparison to an LD50 standard, the supplier criteria mayreflect a comparison to an ISO 14001 environmental standard, the waterpartition coefficient criteria may reflect the degree of correlationwith a level of toxicity and bio-concentration, the propellant criteriamay reflect a rating of certain non-hydrocarbon gasses as more favorablethan hydrocarbon propellants, and the bio-accumulation criteria mayreflect a comparison to fish BCF.

In a preferred form the bio-accumulation criteria is selected andreflects a comparison to fish BCF, or a category for both formulas issurfactants and the criteria for both formulas comprises an aquatictoxicology rating, a biodegradability rating, an acute human toxicityrating, and a European Union environmental classification rating.

In yet another preferred form a category for both formulas isinsecticides and the criteria comprises an aquatic toxicity rating, apersistence rating, a bioaccumulation rating, and a supplier rating.

In another preferred form a category for both formulas is solvents andthe criteria comprises an aquatic toxicology rating, a biodegradabilityrating, an acute human toxicity rating, a European Union environmentalclassification rating, a vapor pressure rating, and a water partitioncoefficient rating.

In another aspect the invention provides a method for environmentallyclassifying an environmental impact of a chemical component for aselected functional use. The method involves:

(a) assigning the chemical component to a category based on a proposedfunctional use of the chemical component;

(b) comparing the chemical component to at least two environmentalcategory-specific criteria associated with the category;

(c) assigning a class numerical value for each said criteria based onthe result of the comparison; and

(d) combining the class numerical values assigned to the chemicalcomponent for each of the category specific criteria associated with thecategory;

whereby the combination provides an overall environmental class for thechemical component;

wherein the environmental class for the chemical component reflects anumerical value representing at least two criteria selected from thegroup consisting of aquatic toxicology, persistence, biodegradability,acute human toxicity, European Union environmental classification,supplier rating, vapor pressure, water partition coefficient, propellantrating, aquatic toxicity, and bio-accumulation. At least part of themethod is not computer-implemented. For example, some of the steps couldbe done manually.

In one form the biodegradability criteria is selected and reflects acomparison to an OECD 301 standard. In another form the acute humantoxicity criteria is selected and reflects a comparison to a LD50standard. In yet another form, the supplier rating criteria is selectedand reflects a comparison to an ISO 14000 standard and other supplierrating criteria. In still another form the propellant rating criteria isselected and reflects a rating system that rates certain non-hydrocarbongasses as more environmentally favorable than hydrocarbon propellants.In yet another form the category is chelants and the criteria comprisesan aquatic toxicology rating, a biodegradability rating, an acute humantoxicity rating, and a European Union environmental classificationrating.

In yet another aspect the invention provides an environmentalclassification system database. One provides a database containing aplurality of categories of data representing classes of likely use ofproducts to be evaluated. There is a first environmental class for agiven chemical component present in a first of said categories as a partof the database. There is also a second environmental class having adifferent value than the first, for that same chemical component, thatis present in a second of said categories as a part of the database.

The database may be contained in a wide variety of different types ofmedia desired. For example, it may be part of a book. Alternatively, itmay be a computer database accessible by a software searching facility(e.g. a Lotus database).

In one embodiment a numerical grade for a component with respect to aclass can be assigned such as 3, 2, 1 or 0 (with 3 being best and 0being poor). Importantly, a component may have a 0 rating in one classof application (e.g. a biocide for a preservative), and may have ahigher rating for another class of application (e.g. a biocide used in adisinfectant).

The present invention thus helps a company evaluate competing productformulas so as to take into account environmental concerns in a moreordered way. This is particularly valuable where two or more formulasare reasonably acceptable from a cost and performance standpoint.

An important advantage of the invention is that it permits a company toquickly modify the database criteria for each class as law andscientific knowledge develop (e.g. if a particular jurisdiction adopts anew regulation). Moreover, the system does not require that anyparticular chemical bear a “scarlet letter” for all purposes. Rather, itevaluates each chemical component from the standpoint of its ultimateuse.

Moreover, the invention is capable of being automated, and even ifimplemented via manual means (e.g. a text and manual calculation) iseasy to use and implement, at low cost. These and still other advantagesof the present invention will appear from the following description. Inthat description reference is made to the accompanying drawings in whichthere is shown by way of illustration preferred embodiments of theinvention. However, the claims should be looked to in order to judge thefull scope of the invention.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is a flow chart illustrating a selection of a functional categoryfor a chemical;

FIG. 2 is a chart illustrating methods relevant to aquatic toxicologyfor surfactants;

FIG. 3 is a chart illustrating methods relevant to ultimatebiodegradability for surfactants;

FIG. 4 is a chart illustrating methods relevant to acute human toxicityfor surfactants;

FIG. 5 is a chart illustrating methods relevant to European Unionclassifications for surfactants;

FIG. 6 is a chart illustrating methods relevant to suppliercategorization for surfactants;

FIG. 7 is a chart illustrating how a preliminary environmentalclass/grade (“EC”) can be calculated using the primary criteria scoresfor surfactants;

FIG. 8 is a chart illustrating methods relevant to varying the EC basedon special environmental concerns relevant to surfactants;

FIG. 9 is a chart summarizing the overall grading process for onechemical component;

FIG. 10 is a chart illustrating category-specific criteria for solvents;

FIG. 11 is a chart illustrating category-specific criteria for chelants;

FIG. 12 is a chart illustrating category-specific criteria forinsecticides; and

FIG. 13 is a chart illustrating methods relevant to calculating anoverall environmental score for a product.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT

FIG. 1 depicts a flow chart illustrating a determination of a functionalcategory for a chemical raw material. Initially, the chemical componentis categorized in a category selected based on the functional useproposed for the component (e.g. a surfactant use 44).

For that category, the surfactant component is initially preferablycompared to the five primary category-specific environmental criteriaassociated with the selected functional category (see FIGS. 2-6), and a“class” value indicating a level of environmental impact is assigned foreach category-specific criteria for that chemical. An overallenvironmental class/grade for the chemical component is then preferablycalculated as the sum of the class values for each of thecategory-specific divided by the number of category specific criteria todetermine an average. Alternatively, the values could be otherwisecombined, or could be weighted in some manner depending on theimportance of each criteria for that application.

Although the environmental classification method could be used for anynumber of different functional categories, including, for example,solvents, propellants, chelants, and insecticides, the method willprimarily be described hereafter with reference to criteria applied foruse in a surfactant. Referring still to FIG. 1, for a surfactant 44,five different category-specific criteria are analyzed, and referringalso to FIG. 8 an adjustment can optionally be made for “other factors”which are important to the environmental impact of chemical componentsin the selected category. As described, a numerical class value isassigned for each category-specific criteria.

The class values for each of the category specific criteria are thensummed, and an average is calculated 80. The average can be adjustedbased on the class specific criteria (130-140) shown in FIG. 8. Here, aclass of 3 is assigned if the chemical component has only limitedenvironmental impact as compared to the category-specific criterion, aclass of zero is assigned if the chemical component has extremelysignificant impact, and grades of one and two are assigned for impactlevels between these ends of the scale. Although the method is describedwith reference to this selected numerical scale, it will be apparentthat alternative numerical scales, with or without weighting, can beprovided.

The resulting environmental class for the chemical component can be usedas a direct comparison for chemical components, or can be multiplied byits proposed weight and an environmental grade for a product determinedas a sum of the scores of the chemical components multiplied by theirrelative weights in the product. One way of doing this is multiplyingthe scores by the percentage of presence of each component. Another isto multiply the percentages by 100 and use those for the multiplying.Still other techniques can be used to reflect weight presence.

Where all other factors are equal, the better overall environmentalgrade may be used as a determinative factor in selecting the finalformulation. Where there are some significant differences in the cost orperformance of the competing formulas, the environmental grade may betaken into account as an additional significant factor arguing for oneformula over the other.

FIGS. 2-6 and 8 illustrate the category-specific criteria associatedwith surfactant 44, wherein the preferred criteria that are consideredin the development of the environmental class for the surfactantcategory are noted. Here, the category-specific criteria include aquatictoxicology 54, ultimate biodegradability 56, acute human toxicity lethaldose 58, European union environmental classification 60, supplier/source62, and other significant concerns 130-140 can be factored in withrespect to particular chemicals used.

Referring now specifically to FIG. 2 a flow chart illustrating the stepsin analyzing the chemical component or raw material for the aquatictoxicology criteria 54 is shown. The aquatic toxicology 54 criteria isparticularly useful in analyzing products which are disposed down adrain, which are used out-of-doors, and which can be spilled on or inland disposal sites either through runoff or leaching.

The test comprises comparing the raw material against a “lethalconcentration to kill 50%” standard known in the art for providing aconcentration of the raw material in test animals over a given time. Forexample, the LC50 comparison level 74 could be 1 mg/L. If the LC50 levelof the raw material is less than 1 mg/L for a tested specie, the rawmaterial can be assigned a numerical class value of one. If the LC50rating is greater than 1 mg/L but the number of species tested is lessthan 3 (76), the raw material can be assigned a class of 2 for thiscriteria. Otherwise, if the LC50 rating is always greater than 1 mg/Land more than three species have been tested to reach this conclusion,the class can be 3.

Referring now to FIG. 3, the ultimate biodegradability category-specificcriteria 56 can be based on the half-life of the raw material, asdefined in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development(OECD) 301 Standard. This criteria is mostly relevant to aquaticenvironmental affects but also correlates with half-lives on land. Theraw material can be assigned a class of 3 if more than 60% of thematerial is biodegraded within a 10-day window (84) as described by theinternational standard OECD 301 test series. If not, but if more than60% of the material is biodegraded within a 28-day window (86) it isassigned a class of 2. Alternatively, if less than 60% is biodegradedwithin 28 days the raw material is assigned a class of 1.

Referring now to FIG. 4, the acute human toxicity 58 category-specificcriteria defines a minimal parameter for potential toxicity to humansand is compared to a lethal dose standard, LD50, known in the art, formeasuring short-term poisoning potential. The raw material can be ratedas a class of 3 if the LD50 rating is greater than 2000 mg/kg (94). Ifthe LD50 is instead between 500 and 2000 mg/kg (96) the raw material canbe assigned a class of 2 for this category specific criteria. Otherwiseit can be assigned a class of 1.

Referring now to FIG. 5, the European Union environmental classificationcategory-specific criteria can be determined based on ecologicalparameters defined in the European Union. To determine the class valueassigned to the raw material with respect to this category-specificcriteria, an analysis is first made to determine whether an adverseEuropean class applies to the raw material (104). If no adverse classapplies, and the raw material has an aquatic toxicity level greater than100 mg/L and the raw material is readily biodegradable (108), the rawmaterial can receive a class of 3.

If the aquatic toxicity is less than 100 mg/L but greater than 1 mg/Land it is readily biodegradable (112), it can receive a class of 2.However, if any European Union classification N, R50; N, R50-53, N,R51-53, R52-53, R52, or R53 applies, the raw material can be assigned aclass of 1.

In the European Union Classification system, the R50 criteria indicatesthat the raw material is very toxic to aquatic organisms, the EuropeanUnion R51 classification indicates that the material is toxic to aquaticorganisms, the R52 classification indicates that the material is harmfulto aquatic organisms, and the R53 indicates that the material may causelong-term adverse effects in an aquatic environment.

Referring now to FIG. 6, a supplier criteria 62 for evaluating adverseenvironmental impact due to the supplier is based on the ISO 14001standard of the International Standard Organization. If the supplier isISO 14001 certified, the supplier is automatically assigned a class of3. If the supplier is not ISO 14001 certified, but more than 75% of theraw material supplied by the supplier is classified as a “preferred” rawmaterial (122), the supplier can still be graded as a class 3.

If not, but if more than 25% of the raw material supplied by thesupplier is preferred (124), a class of 2 can be applied, or if lessthan 25% of the raw material is preferred (126), a class of 1 can beapplied with another indicator of good environmental characteristics.Otherwise, a class of 0 can be applied.

Referring now to FIG. 7, the five main sub-grades 54, 56, 58, 60 and 62can be averaged to yield an EC or grade 80. Then, the chemical componentmay also be evaluated for other concerns based on the selectedfunctional category, as shown in FIG. 8. For surfactants 44, theseconcerns include EPA (“EP”) persistent bioaccumulative toxin(PBT)/persistent organic pollutant (POP) classifications (130),endocrine disruptors (130), carcinogenicity as defined, for example, inCalifornia proposition 65 (134), reproduction toxins as defined, forexample, in California proposition 65 (136), a determination as towhether the chemical component has been banned in one or more country(138), and whether any unofficial bans, such as a ban by a tradeassociation (140), has been applied to the chemical component undertest. If any of these factors apply, environmental class/gradedetermined by the averaging process (80) of FIG. 1 is reduced (e.g. byone).

FIG. 9 summarizes the surfactant grading process noted above.

Referring next to FIGS. 10-13, other possible chemical analysiscategories and the associated category-specific criteria are shown. FIG.10 shows the associated criteria, albeit for the development ofenvironmental classes for solvents. Here, additional analyses for vaporpressure 64 and octanol/water partition coefficient 66 are used forcriteria.

Referring to FIG. 11, chelants 50 can be graded based on aquatictoxicology 54, biodegradability 56, European Union environmentalclassification 60, and supplier classification 62, each of which aredescribed above. In this category other significant concerns which mightmerit reduction of the environmental class (as shown in FIG. 8) includeraw materials which tend to mobilize heavy metals in the environment,carcinogenicity, meet the EPA criteria for classification as apersistent bioaccumulative toxin (PBT)/allergy/sensitization, havetreatogenicity or reproductive effects, are banned in one or morecountries, or are banned unofficially by trade associations or the like.

FIG. 12 shows an insecticide 52 in which relevant criteria are aquatictoxicity 55, persistence 70, bio-accumulation Bio-concentration Factor(BCF) 72, where BCF is a measure of the ratio of concentration of achemical inside an organism to the concentration in the surroundingenvironment, and supplier rating 62. In the insecticide category othersignificant concerns which may cause a reduction in the grade are afuture EPA classification of persistent bioaccumlative toxin(PBT)/persistent organic pollutant (POP), endocrine disruption,indicated neural toxicity, or banning in one or more countries orunofficially by a trade association. Also important in this category arechildren's health or carcinogenicity issues.

Although not shown, propellants may be graded by an initial ratingformed from a determination if the propellant comprises just compressedair, nitrogen or CO₂ (which merits the highest rating), or if it ishydrocarbon (which merits a middle rating), or if it is a moreproblematic gas such as CFC or HFC (which merits a lower rating).

Referring now to FIG. 13, for a proposed chemical product 21, theenvironmental class determined for each chemical raw material ascategorized in a selected functional category is multiplied by theweight of the chemical component or raw material in the product, and theresultant values are summed to provide an environmental grade for theoverall product.

The following Tables I and II propose two different formulations forconsideration as hard surface cleaners. In each case, the environmentalclass (computed by summing the criteria and dividing by the number ofcriteria) is multiplied by the percentage of the component. The Table IIformula can be seen as being indicated as more environmentally friendly.TABLE I Environ. Environmental Raw Materials Percentage Class GradeDeionized water 66.81818 3 200.454 Tetrasodium sale of EDTA, 19.63636 00 40% Glycol ether 10.90909 3 32.7272 Nonylphenol ethoxylate 1.36364 0 0Disinfectant 0.49091 1 0.49091 Co-surfactant 0.36364 1 0.36364 PHadjuster 0.23636 0 0 Fragrance 0.18182 1 0.18182 Total Percentage 100Overall Grade 234.218

TABLE II Environ. Environmental Raw Materials Percentage Class GradeDeionized water 66.81818 3 200.454 Biodegradable chelant 19.63636 358.9090 Glycol ether 10.90909 3 32.7272 Alcohol ethoxylate 1.36364 22.72728 Disinfectant 0.49091 1 0.49091 Co-surfactant 0.36364 1 0.36364Organic pH adjuster 0.23636 1 0.23636 Fragrance 0.18182 1 0.18182 TotalPercentage 100 Overall Grade 296.090

The overall environmental grade of the product can also be listed onproduct labels to be used by consumers to make more informed decisionsbetween competing products. For example, instead of producing only oneproduct, a company might produce both a high strength formula with someenvironmental issues, and a low strength formula with a lesser set ofenvironmental issues, leaving it to the consumer to make the trade-offafter reading the labeling information.

To simplify determining the environmental grade of the product, adatabase can be constructed in which the environmental class associatedwith the chemical component for a given functional categories or for alldefined functional categories is stored. Depending on the use of thechemical component, a previously-determined environmental class value,calculated as described above, can be retrieved from the database. Theenvironmental class is then multiplied by the weight of the chemicalcomponent in a proposed product. To determine an environmental grade fora chemical product, this process would be repeated for all of thechemical components in the product, and the results of themultiplications summed to provide the environmental grade, as describedabove. The database information could be stored in a book form, or aspart of a computerized data storage device.

Although preferred embodiments have been described, it will be apparentthat a number of revisions could be made within the spirit and scope ofthe invention. In this regard, although a grading system noted aboveassigns each component a collective grade based on summing the criteriadivided by the number of criteria, with a 0 to 3 scale for eachsub-criteria (with the higher numbers being more environmentallyfriendly), other numerical approaches could be used.

For example, the lower numbers for each criteria could be the onesassigned the environmentally friendly attributes. Also, the number scalecould be 1-100, or otherwise different. Accordingly, the claims shouldbe referred to in order to determine the full scope of the invention.

INDUSTRIAL APPLICABILITY

The invention provides grading systems for environmentally gradingcomponents, and formulas that incorporate them. Such grading systemsprovide methods for selecting formulations with improved environmentalcharacteristics.

1. A method for formulating a product for a specified functional use,comprising: (a) obtaining two possible formulas for the product, eachformula having at least two chemical components; (b) for each component,separately environmentally classifying an environmental impact of thecomponent for the functional use for a formula by the following process:(i) assigning that chemical component to a category based on a proposedfunctional use of the chemical component; (ii) comparing that chemicalcomponent to at least two environmental category-specific criteriaassociated with that category; (iii) assigning a class numerical valuefor each said criteria for that chemical component based on the resultof the comparison; and (iv) combining the class numerical valuesassigned to that chemical component for each of the category specificcriteria associated with the category for that chemical component;whereby the combination provides an overall environmental class for thechemical component for a formula; (c) with respect to each component inthe first formula multiplying its environmental class times a numberrepresentative of its relative weight presence in the first formula; (d)summing the result of the step (c) multiplications for the chemicalcomponents in the first formula to provide an environmental grade forthe first formula; (e) with respect to each component in the secondformula multiplying its environmental class times a numberrepresentative of its relative weight presence in the second formula;(f) summing the result of the step (e) multiplications for the chemicalcomponents in the second formula to provide an environmental grade forthe second formula; and (g) comparing resulting environmental grades forthe first and second formulas, and based at least in part on thecomparison selecting a formulation for the product; wherein the methodis performed at least in part without the assistance of a computer. 2.The method of claim 1, wherein the combined class numerical values forat least one component are further adjusted to reflect otherenvironmental concerns specific to the functional category.
 3. Themethod of claim 1, wherein at least one category is selected from thegroup consisting of a surfactant category, a solvent category, apreservative category, a fragrance category, an organic acid category,an inorganic acid category, a dye category, a wax category, a propellantcategory, a chelant category, and an insecticide category.
 4. The methodof claim 1 wherein the environmental class for at least one chemicalcomponent reflects a numerical value representing at least two criteriaselected from the group consisting of aquatic toxicology, persistence,biodegradability, acute human toxicity, European Union environmentalclassification, supplier rating, vapor pressure, water partitioncoefficient rating, propellant rating, aquatic toxicity, andbio-accumulation.
 5. The method of claim 4, wherein the aquatictoxicology criteria is selected and reflects a comparison to a LC50standard.
 6. The method of claim 4, wherein the bio-accumulationcriteria is selected and reflects a comparison to fish BCF.
 7. Themethod of claim 4, wherein a category for both formulas is surfactantsand the criteria for both formulas comprises an aquatic toxicologyrating, a biodegradability rating, an acute human toxicity rating, and aEuropean Union environmental classification rating.
 8. The method ofclaim 4, wherein a category for both formulas is solvents and thecriteria comprises an aquatic toxicology rating, a biodegradabilityrating, an acute human toxicity rating, a European Union environmentalclassification rating, a vapor pressure rating, and a water partitioncoefficient rating.
 9. The method of claim 4, wherein a category forboth formulas is insecticides and the criteria comprises an aquatictoxicity rating, a persistence rating, a bioaccumulation rating, and asupplier rating.
 10. The method of claim 1, wherein the method isperformed without the assistance of the computer.
 11. A method forenvironmentally classifying an environmental impact of a chemicalcomponent for a selected functional use, the method comprising:assigning the chemical component to a category based on a proposedfunctional use of the chemical component; comparing the chemicalcomponent to at least two environmental category-specific criteriaassociated with the category; assigning a class numerical value for eachsaid criteria based on the result of the comparison; and combining theclass numerical values assigned to the chemical component for each ofthe category specific criteria associated with the category; whereby thecombination provides an overall environmental class for the chemicalcomponent; wherein the environmental class for the chemical componentreflects a numerical value representing at least two criteria selectedfrom the group consisting of aquatic toxicology, persistence,biodegradability, acute human toxicity, European Union environmentalclassification, supplier rating, vapor pressure, water partitioncoefficient, propellant rating, aquatic toxicity, and bio-accumulation;wherein at least one of the following applies: (a) the biodegradabilitycriteria is selected and reflects a comparison to an OECD 301 standard;or (b) the acute human toxicity criteria is selected and reflects acomparison to a LD50 standard; (c) the supplier rating criteria isselected and reflects a comparison to an ISO 14000 standard and othersupplier rating criteria; or (d) the propellant rating criteria isselected and reflects a rating system that rates certain non-hydrocarbongasses as more environmentally favorable than hydrocarbon propellants;and wherein the method is performed at least in part without theassistance of a computer.
 12. A method for environmentally classifyingan environmental impact of a chemical component for a selectedfunctional use, the method comprising: assigning the chemical componentto a category based on a proposed functional use of the chemicalcomponent; comparing the chemical component to at least twoenvironmental category-specific criteria associated with the category;assigning a class numerical value for each said criteria based on theresult of the comparison; and combining the class numerical valuesassigned to the chemical component for each of the category specificcriteria associated with the category; whereby the combination providesan overall environmental class for the chemical component; wherein theenvironmental class for the chemical component reflects a numericalvalue representing at least two criteria selected from the groupconsisting of aquatic toxicology, persistence, biodegradability, acutehuman toxicity, European Union environmental classification, supplierrating, vapor pressure, octanol water partition coefficient, propellantrating, aquatic toxicity, and bio-accumulation; wherein the category ischelants and the criteria comprises an aquatic toxicology rating, abiodegradability rating, an acute human toxicity rating, and a EuropeanUnion environmental classification rating; and wherein the method isperformed at least in part without the assistance of a computer.